Debates of Nov. 29th, 2011

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 88 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-10.

Motion No. 58 will not be selected by the Chair, because it requires a royal recommendation.

Motions Nos. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 19, 54, 60, 61 and 88 will not be selected by the Chair, because they could have been presented in committee.

Motions Nos. 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 to 18, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 to 50, 52, 55 to 57, 59, 63, 72, 74, 75 and 79 will not be selected by the Chair, because they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 20 to 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 86 and 87.

Group No. 3 will include Motions Nos. 53, 62 and 64 to 69.

Group No. 4 will include Motions Nos. 70, 71, 73, 76 to 78, 80 and 81.

Group No. 5 will include Motions Nos. 82 to 85.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

moved:

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting clause 1.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following:

““terrorism” includes torture.

“torture” has the meaning given to that term in article 1, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

moved:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 5 the following:

“(6) In any action under subsection (1), the defendant’s conduct is deemed to have caused or contributed to the loss of or damage to the plaintiff if the court finds that

(a) a listed entity caused or contributed to the loss or damage by engaging in conduct that is contrary to any provision of Part II.1 of the Criminal Code, whether the conduct occurred in or outside Canada; and

(b) the defendant engaged in conduct that is contrary to any of sections 83.02 to 83.04, 83.08, 83.1, 83.11, or 83.18 to 83.231 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of or otherwise in relation to that listed entity.”

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are now getting down to the later stages of the bill, the report stage, after having had a rather short time in committee to deal with it. It could have been shorter, but as we have seen with the list of amendments here at the report stage, it is pretty clear that nobody and no party was satisfied with the bill, either at second reading at committee or here at report stage. In fact, the government itself moved a series of amendments at report stage, clearly indicating that sufficient consideration had not been given to the bill either in its preparation for second reading or in committee.

We had one meeting devoted to one aspect of this nine-bill omnibus bill, the justice for victims of terrorism act. None of the amendments that the member for Mount Royal moved were accepted at the committee, yet we had five or six or seven amendments from the government at report stage in an attempt to fix what could have been fixed in committee.

Now this omnibus bill is being rushed through. My amendment, Motion No. 1, is to remove the short title. The short title is “safe streets and communities act”. We want to remove that title because, aside from the provisions having to do with sexual assault and offences against children, which we supported, every single expert who came before our committee essentially said that overall, the provisions of the bill were going to lead to greater crime in this country and to streets being less safe. These experts included anybody who had done any study and anybody who had any credentials based upon their work or their training, whether professors of law, professors of criminology, people who had studied this, or representatives from the Canadian Bar Association, who are experts in this field and represent both prosecutors and defence counsel. The Barreau du Québec was another group that came before us with criticisms of the bill.

We had strong representations from the Attorney General of Quebec, who spoke passionately about the experience in Quebec over the last 40 years in dealing with young offenders and about the principles Quebec operated on, principles that are being changed by this legislation. He said quite strongly that the changes being proposed here were so contrary to the experience and prospects of young people in the youth justice system in Quebec that he wanted them changed. He wanted the provinces to be able to make exemptions in the publication of young people's names, for example. He complained about the use of adult sentences. He complained about changing the principles of sentencing for the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add individual deterrence and denunciation as principles of sentencing, as opposed to rehabilitation. He talked about how successful they had been in Quebec in keeping young people out of jail, to the point that they have a greater success record than the rest of the country.

When we heard expert after expert telling us that the results of the sentencing changes, particularly the mandatory minimums and particularly the lack of flexibility in allowing judges to fashion sentences in extreme cases, we were overwhelmed, frankly, by the received wisdom of those experts saying that there was something wrong with the bill. We opposed it at second reading and tried to make substantive changes to the bill in committee, given the limited time that we had, but we were unsuccessful.

Not a single amendment proposed by any opposition party was accepted in the clause-by-clause study of the bill, yet some of the amendments proposed by the member for Mount Royal are mirrored in the amendments proposed by the government, but ruled out of order by the Speaker, at report stage.

We have a very difficult situation here. I realize it is symbolic to change the name of the bill. The government calls this piece of legislation the “safe streets and communities act”, yet it wants to limit debate to depicting itself as being tough on crime and the opposition as being sympathetic to criminals and wanting things to be a lot easier for them. That is the nature of the debate that the government has tried to foist upon Canadians, but the response from Canadians has been overwhelmingly critical of the government's approach to changing the fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system.

There are some exceptions. Not everything in the bill is negative or bad, and we supported many aspects of it, but to say that this piece of legislation is going to provide safer streets and communities is laughable. There are people who believe that criminals do not get heavy enough sentences for what they do; there may be selective ways of doing that, but the way the bill tackles this issue has resulted in the most consistent level of opposition that I have ever seen from those concerned about the nature of our criminal justice system.

Even those who support the bill have reservations. The Association of Chiefs of Police says it supports it in principle. Some victims of crime came forward to say they were concerned about not having tougher sentences, while others said they were more concerned about prevention and rehabilitation. There are those who think there should be stronger sentences, and our judges are listening to that. Parts of the bill deal with that issue, and we support that aspect.

As I mentioned, the government has called the bill the “safe streets and communities act”, yet expert evidence has indicated that the overall effects of the bill are more likely to lead to more crime, more recidivism or repeat offenses, more victims of crime and less safety for our streets.

Our Motion No. 1 is directed at doing just that.

Motions Nos. 2, 5 and 8 in this grouping relate to what is called acts of terrorism against Canada and Canadians, but the bill really would establish a new tort to allow victims of acts of terrorism to bring civil suits against foreign countries or foreign agencies.

We have some problems with that bill. We do not have a problem with the approach, and there are a number of amendments try to fix the bill. The government has recognized at this stage, a little too late, that it should have been fixed, but that is an indication of how it has rushed this legislation and failed to give the proper amount of time to consider it.

It also underscores that for clearly political and ideological reasons, the bill is being lumped together with eight other bills to support the government's notion that it is tough on crime and the opposition is not. We are trying to improve the bill, make the criminal justice system fairer and more reasonable, and raise the point that changes have to be made to the bill but are not being made.

Even the United States, which probably has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, has safety valves for mandatory minimum sentences; this legislation has none.

There would have been an opportunity in committee to fix the bill if there had been more time. Many changes could have been made in committee. The Speaker ruled that the government's amendments are all out of order because they could have been presented in committee, so clearly the bill could have been fixed if we had had more time to do a proper job, and we argued for more time in the face of time allocation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question about the hon. member for St. John's East's very last point.

It is very telling and important that we examine the problem of having rushed this bill through committee, but now we have the government amendments ruled out of order. These amendments, which opposition members would have supported, would have cleared the committee had they been presented then.

What are the member's thoughts as to why those efforts to fix the bill now have come too late?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that after the first day, when we had two hours of debate, the member for Mount Royal moved a substantial number of amendments. As he said, we were trying to fix and improve the bill. That is what clause-by-clause is for. However, it is clear the government did not really have enough time to consider the reasonable amendments. Some of the amendments the government put forward mirrored, or were slightly different, but properly considered ways of changing and improving the bill.

I am extremely disappointed, as I think Canadians are, that parliamentarians from both sides did not get an opportunity to do their job. We went into the second meeting with a motion that this would be done between 8:45 a.m. and midnight tonight or not at all. We ended up in a filibuster, but it was an attempt to focus attention on the problem and to try to solve it. Obviously this job was rushed.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's East. Quebec and some of the other provinces do not want this bill. People have been protesting in a number of provinces, to indicate their opposition to the bill. Building expensive megaprisons will not make our streets safer. What are my colleagues thoughts on that?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, incarcerating more people may keep those individuals out of society for a period of time, but people who go to jail get out. They do not stay there for the rest of their lives.

The result of lengthy periods of incarceration will be full prisons that lack the ability of rehabilitation programs to better prepare people to return to society and be better members of society. That is one way that we will have less safe streets. A young person who might otherwise have been rehabilitated and avoided the criminal process may end up being a hardened criminal and lead a life of crime, inflicting harm upon society. The expertise has said that this would lead to less safe communities and streets.

The costs are enormous. The provinces do not want to bear those costs and they have their own views in many cases, particularly the youth justice in Quebec. As well, the use of adult sentences in some circumstances would be contrary to the experience in having a better youth justice system in other provinces.

Overall I think the effect of this is going to be less safe street. That is what the experts tell us. I know some people have an emotional reaction and lengthy sentences to crime gives some satisfaction. However, there are other ways to achieve safer streets, at which the government has not looked.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the efforts of the member for St. John's East on this file. What does the member think is the best way to achieve this bill's objectives?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, succinctly, greater effort on prevention and rehabilitation and more contribution to police services and enforcement is important.

There is a rate of 6% or 7% more aboriginal people in our prisons. Clearly there is something wrong with that. Significant efforts have to be made to work on prevention in aboriginal communities and fix our justice system.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today. The amendments put forward by me on behalf of the Green Party and by other members on the other opposition benches, the official opposition and the Liberal Party, speak to a desire of the majority of Canadians to see the bill fixed. I am particularly speaking to an amendment put forward under part I, the justice for victims of terrorism act.

I want to begin my brief remarks by paying tribute to one extraordinarily brave Canadian woman, Maureen Basnicki, whose great courage and perseverance in the face of losing her husband, Ken, in the disaster of 9/11 inspires us all.

I had a chance to talk to Maureen in the justice committee hearings. This was during the time we were transfixed by a government motion to end debate and push the whole bill through that day. She was disheartened, as an individual Canadian, that so much in the bill was caught up in an omnibus bill. As much as I support the efforts to allow Canadians, such as Maureen, who ever experienced the tragedy of personal loss to an act of terrorism overseas, and as much as it is quite right and appropriate, Canadians should be able to seek civil remedies overseas.

There is much in the bill that changes the characteristics of Canada and the values of Canadians in ways that do not reflect the kind of country we are. In fact, one of the trite things said after 9/11 was that if we abandoned civil liberties, if we changed what we were as a country, we had let the terrorists win.

To throw people in jail on mandatory minimums without the discretion of a judge who sees the person before him or her, without the opportunity of the criminal justice system to work toward restorative justice, without the opportunities that a compassionate justice system has to figure out if the person deserves jail time, or needs mental health facility where he or she can get the help needed, or is a victim of systemic racism or is someone for whom only criminal justice will work, needs revision. Putting forward my first amendment, which relates to the victims of terrorism act, is an important improvement in Canadian law and I support it. The amendment I have added today, should it be passed, will only expand the ambit of those Canadians who have been damaged by acts that fall well below the rule of law.

My amendment would add to the definition of terrorism that we would also recognize an act of torture to be something for which Canadians could seek redress overseas. It would apply to the case of someone like Mahar Arar. He was taken, in violation of all that is decent and in violation of all rule of law, not in recognition of his Canadian citizenship at all, and subjected to torture. He too would have redress to these civil remedies.

Since I have the opportunity to speak to the bill, as the hon. member from the official opposition has done, let me also speak to the broader problem. In the view of every criminologist, expert, academic who appeared before the justice committee and who commented on this through the media and in learned articles and so on, no one who has an experience of mandatory minimums believes they work. They do not believe they will reduce crime. They believe they will drive up the cost of our system and impose on the provinces. As has been so well pointed out by the provincial justice minister for the province of Quebec, there could be untold billions of dollars in the cost of new prisons.

We already have overcrowded prisons. To crowd them further will impose other problems. The state of California needed a court order to release prisoners because the overcrowding constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of its bill of rights. We do not want that situation in Canada.

I want to raise a very specific point that did not come up in committee. I believe it is very important for all Canadians to recognize that every member of the House of Commons favours law-abiding citizens. Every member of the House of Commons wants to do better than the bill does in supporting victims of crime.

However, the legislation will not deliver safer streets. I cannot say that forcefully enough. One of the aspects of this, which I do not think has received adequate attention, comes from the experience in the United States, when the Americans removed judicial discretion with mandatory minimums and gave power in the hands of prosecutors to exact plea bargains.

Plea bargains have become far and away more common than criminal trials, which means that presumption of innocence goes out the window. There is generally a sense that if one insists on one's innocence and goes to trial, one will be punished down the road with a mandatory minimum. That is how prosecutors exact plea bargains. They say that if people go to trial, they will increase the offence. If they are found guilty, they will go to jail for 20 years instead of 2 years.

I will quote an article from the New York Times, on September 25, 2011, titled “Sentencing Shift Gives New Leverage to Prosecutors”, and a legal scholar, who was a former conservative federal judge and prosecutor and now law professor. I want to emphasize this and I hope members of Parliament will reconsider it and give weight to this last moment we have at report stage to fix this bill and get rid of mandatory minimums.

This is what former judge Paul Cassell said:

Judges have lost discretion, and that discretion has accumulated in the hands of prosecutors, who now have the ultimate ability to shape the outcome. With mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements out there, prosecutors can often dictate the sentence that will be imposed.

The story goes on to say:

Without question, plea bargains benefit many defendants who have committed crimes and receive lighter sentences than they might after trial.

In other words, taking discretion away from judges does not guarantee, as those on the government benches so desire to see, that people who are guilty of crimes will be put behind bars. They may get the perverse result that I am sure they do not want, that mandatory minimums drive us to a completely new system in which prosecutors have the ability to plea bargain. In that process, people who would have been found guilty before a judge and jury, and be subjected to a harsher sentence, would get a lighter sentence.

Yes, we will overcrowd our jails. Without the safety valve provisions in the amendments that we will be reviewing today, without an ability to say “mandatory minimums should not apply here”, without that, we will be crowding our jails.

We know as of now we are not putting sufficient resources into programs for mental health or to help people with addictions. We know that so many of the problems that occur in crimes on the streets have to do with systemic problems of poverty, lack of access to mental health resources, treatment and care and addiction. If we are not dealing with those, we are merely throwing people from the streets, where there are problems, into jails. Jails are not a solution to mental health problems. Jails are no solution to the absence of affordable housing.

This is not legislation that will work for Canadians. It will not make safer streets; it will make meaner streets. This is not a bill that deals with Canadian values. This speaks to some other country that I do not know. I do not want to live in a country that thinks it is better to impose stark mandatory minimums rather than have a criminal justice system rooted in the rule of law that recognizes the primacy of the value that goes back to the times of common law, before the existence of our great country of Canada. We recognize the presumption of innocence. We must not lose that.

We must not live in a country where a member of a governing cabinet can look across the floor of the House and accuse an opposition member, as if it were a crime, to have worked as a lawyer for the defence. The defence of people accused of crime is essential in a criminal justice system. As we know from Donald Marshall Jr. and the Milgaard case, innocent people get accused of crimes. Those people who defend them in court are an essential part of the fabric of a civilized society that understands the rule of law.

I do not think I have ever been so deeply shocked by anything I have heard in the House of Commons as an accusation that the hon. member, who now stands as the official opposition House leader, was somehow a bad person because before entering politics, while practising law, he defended people accused of crimes. We should remember that when someone is accused of a crime we do not say a person is “defending criminals”. The presumption of innocence is an essential part of the fabric of a civilized society. I fear we are losing that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member may be able to continue her comments in questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the important measures we are trying to bring forward with many of the amendments.

One of the issues that caught my attention in the member's speech relates to support for individuals with mental health issues. In my riding of Sudbury, the Canadian Mental Health Association does great work with those individuals. However, we are starting to see more and more individuals who require mental health services ending up in jails and not necessarily getting the services they need. What we do not want our prison system to become is the next system for individuals with mental health issues to get those services.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments as to what we see coming forward for individuals with mental health issues and how the bill would do anything to change that or even support them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear there were attempts to amend this legislation. The witnesses appearing on behalf of the Toronto Lawyers Association and others on behalf of the legal community argued that this legislation should be amended to take into account mental health issues. That was not possible at committee. Those amendments were not given adequate opportunity to be discussed.

In this set of amendments, we are bringing forward a safety valve that deals with mental health issues.

This legislation would criminalize the mentally ill. We are not seeing the resources that are needed in prisons to help people with mental health issues, nor are the mental health issues on the streets being addressed. If we are not dealing with it and we are not helping those individuals, we are jailing them.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with a very complex bill, an omnibus bill. The Conservative government says it consulted families, but did it truly listen to the experts? We have no way of knowing.

My colleague proposed some amendments today. I would like her to remind us what she based those amendments on. Whom did she listen to in order to come to the conclusion that this bill needed some amendments?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to every expert, witness, academic and legal expert.

There is a huge body of evidence that calls for this bill to be amended. Every criminologist is saying that mandatory minimums do not work and that we should not go down that road. In listening to them, I put forward amendments. I have a great hope that at this last minute members of the governing party will give them every consideration and consider changing the law to make our streets safer.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the member said that she has issues with the mandatory minimums. Does the member realize that they are minimums and that in the case of violent repeat offenders, rapists or murderers, a judge could hand down a greater sentence?

As well, could the member let the House know which of the mandatory minimum sentences she is against or feels is too long for some of these violent repeat offenders?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the problem with mandatory minimums is not personal to me. Rather, it is a universal problem among the people who have seen how they operate. There could be higher sentences. I was giving an example from the United States. Former judge Paul Cassell said that what is happening, in which case it is not theoretical, is it gives greater discretion to the prosecutors. As these are not cases that get to court, there is a plea bargaining process that can provide lighter sentences for people who could have had their sentences increased had they appeared before a judge.

In summary, my amendments propose to delete all of the mandatory minimums for all of the offences, not because people should not go to jail, but because in each case a judge should decide how long each convicted person should go to jail.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, at this stage in the proceedings, the motions that I will be referring to relate to those in Group No. 1, Motions No. 2, 5 and 8 in particular.

In effect, what I will be doing is speaking to a set of motions that relate to one particular part of the bill at this stage in the proceedings, which is among those being addressed. That is the part with respect to justice for victims of terror and amending the State Immunity Act.

I also want to add my voice to the words of my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, in paying tribute to Maureen Basnicki. As a victim of terror, she has been advocating for this type of legislation for years, as has the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. I want to acknowledge their advocacy all these years, and pay tribute to them.

If we look at this piece of legislation, we will see, although it may not appear as such, that this is really transformative legislation. This legislation is historic, which is not a word I use lightly.

If one looks at our laws, particularly in the matter of giving civil remedies to victims of terror against the terrorist perpetrators, which do not exist, the reason they do not exist is that we have a State Immunity Act that immunizes the perpetrators of terror from any civil suit. This is the first time that we will be amending the State Immunity Act to give victims of terror a civil remedy against their terrorist perpetrators. That is why I supported this legislation. I support it in principle. That is why I am moving the amendments. They are not in opposition to the legislation. They are intended to help improve the legislation, to give victims a more effective voice against their terrorist perpetrators, and in fact, to hold the terrorists more expressly accountable for their terrorist acts.

That is the first point as to why this legislation is so transformative. For the first time, we will be amending the State Immunity Act to give victims a voice to hold terrorists accountable.

Second, we will be correcting a historical anomaly in our legislation. As it now stands, there is a commercial exception in the State Immunity Act. By a commercial exception I mean that if a Canadian victim has suffered damages by reason of a breach of contract, he or she will have a civil remedy, but if he or she is a victim of terror, he or she will not have a civil remedy.

We have a situation where our legislation gives an implied preference with respect to actions taken for breaches of contract as against actions taken by victims of terror.

This brings me to the third particular transformative dimension. This is the first time that we will be preferring victims of terror against their terrorist perpetrators, who up to now have been immunized by our law for their acts of terror against Canadians.

I have been framing this as a transformative piece of legislation for the reasons mentioned, and also the reasons I moved the amendments in this regard.

One of the things I find ironic and disconcerting is that such a piece of transformative legislation was bundled together with eight other pieces of legislation. I would have thought that the government would have wished to highlight such a transformative piece of legislation. I would have thought that a government that purports to always be wishing to give a voice to victims, and in this instance to victims of terror, would have wished to frame this as a centrepiece of its criminal justice approach, rather than bundle it together with eight other bills.

I would have thought that the government would have wished to have us consider this both in the House when the legislation was first tabled, and then in committee with all the attention, deliberation and discussion that it warranted for being such a transformative and historical piece of legislation. Accordingly, I supported this legislation. I even had a private member's bill which sought to give victims of terror a civil remedy. Therefore, I was pleased when the government introduced its legislation to do exactly that.

I found it ironic that my purported amendments would have been summarily rejected, since they were put forward for the purpose of improving the legislation that the government had introduced to give victims a voice. The representations made by the government when I put forward those amendments were that it was a filibuster. We had already had an abbreviated debate in the House on the tabling of all nine bills, and then we had an abbreviated debate at committee. I moved those amendments as quickly as possible in the abbreviated time that was provided, only to be told that we were filibustering and to be asked why we were considering this legislation again in this House.

It needs to be stated for the record that this is the first time this legislation is being considered in this House. It was never considered in this House. The government attempted to abbreviate discussion on this legislation, on the grounds that it had been discussed here before, which is not the case. Therefore, it warrants the fullest possible discussion.

I will limit myself now to the specific amendments that I put forward in order to improve the legislation.

The first was to give effective civil remedies to victims of terror against the perpetrators of terror. As this legislation now stands, it still would immunize state perpetrators of terror from any acts, injury or damages caused by their acts of terror, let alone the wrongful deaths that ensued. I find it surprising, and it is another anomaly, that this legislation would give victims a civil remedy against the agents or proxies of the state engaged in state terrorism, but not against the state itself. The situation of Libya and the Lockerbie bombing would have been okay under this legislation, if we could have found an agent or proxy of Libya that carried out the act, some terrorist organization acting on Libya's behalf. However, the victims could not have directly sued Libya because Libya would be immunized under this legislation. Similarly, we could not take an action now against Iran for any state act of terror but only against any of its agents or proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as listed as terrorist entities under Canadian law. I put forward this motion again in order to give victims an effective voice against a terrorist state.

The second is that it would not allow for an action to be taken against a non-listed terrorist entity in our law which is functionally associated with a listed entity. We should allow for that because terrorists can change names and we would not be able to sue.

The third is to give an effective remedy for purposes of execution of judgments by the plaintiff victims. We do not have the kind of effective remedies in that regard that we need.

Finally, giving the government the power to list the governments that seem to be terrorist states in this regard would be an arbitrary exercise of discretion that we should not give to states. Even the government's own witnesses said, “Don't go there. Don't give that arbitrary power of listing terrorists to the government”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always learn something when I listen to the hon. member enter into a discourse with respect to pretty well any subject. I thought his speech was actually one of those ones where it was a very useful and a very thoughtful approach to actually making a remedy effective. I think the point that he was making was that, essentially, the civil remedy be extended, not simply to the agent, but to the state actor.

I was thinking, as a former practising lawyer, that it is great to have remedies but if there is no effective execution on the remedies, no effective ability to actually secure funding to satisfy the judgment, then the entire exercise is useless and quite costly, particularly in a civil context.

I would be interested in hearing his thoughts with respect to what appears to be an extension of the law, i.e. extending civil remedies to an agent, when, in fact, suing the Hamas is a total waste of time. or suing the agents of the Lockerbie catastrophe is also a total waste of time. What is useful is being able to get to the state.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always benefit from my exchanges with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, and here is yet another example. He is exactly right. This legislation does not give the victims of terror an effective remedy against the principals involved in the terrorist action. It would give them a more limited remedy only against their agents or proxies.

If we really want to give the victims of terror the voice that the government purports to wish to give them, then we need to authorize a civil remedy against the state, terrorist, perpetrator themselves. Otherwise, we would not only circumscribe but limit the civil remedy and, indeed, we would continue to immunize the terrorist state from liability.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for a very thoughtful address and for focusing on his amendment.

However, I was taken by one thing he said as a, shall we say, newer member of Parliament in this place. Although it has been often repeated that the bill has been debated and debated in this place, he put forward that this is the first time the bill has come before the House of Commons.

I would be very grateful if he would expand on that because it is so often repeated that it is hard not to believe it is true. However, I also recognize that this is new legislation and we have not had adequate time to study it.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time that it is being discussed and debated in this House. A similar piece of legislation was introduced in the other House and debated in the other House, but it was never introduced and debated in this House. The last I looked, we still have two chambers. In this chamber, in the House of Commons, this legislation was only tabled for the first time and debated for the first time in the House and at committee.

It is, as I said, such a piece of transformative legislation that it would have warranted debate, even if it were not for the first time, and extended debate both in the House and in committee.

However, this is the first time that we are debating it and it is bundled together with eight other pieces of legislation. I would say that each of the eight other pieces of legislation, individually and collectively, warrant their own differentiated discussion and debate. Regrettably, we do not have that. We are at least fortunate to be able to address this, albeit for the first time in this House.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

This important crime bill continues to attract a lot of debate, both within and outside this chamber. Often, the debate focuses on misconceptions and falsehoods that have been spread through the fear-mongering of the opposition parties.

I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to the debate because I want to direct my remarks to clarify what is in the bill, what it would do and what other initiatives the government is taking to address the issues discussed in Bill C-10.

First, Bill C-10 does exactly what was promised both during the last federal election and during the Speech from the Throne in June 2011. It combines nine bills that were introduced during the last Parliament, but died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament for the general election.

Second, its objectives, as reflected in the short title, the safe streets and communities act, are clear and, in my view, should be easy for all to understand and support.

Part one of the bill seeks to support victims of terrorism by giving them new tools to hold those who commit acts of terrorism and those who support them, including listed foreign states, accountable.

Part two proposes changes that will ensure that consistent and appropriate penalties are imposed for serious crimes and that the penalties imposed reflect the serious nature of the crime. More specifically, the bill will ensure that those penalities are imposed for all sexual offences committed against children and not just for certain offences. It will ensure that anyone who commits violent acts or offences against property serves their sentence in prison and not in the comfort of their own home under a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

It will also ensure that the most serious drug-related offences, such as trafficking of cocaine or heroin, which generally involve organized crime or the use of violence and weapons and have a serious impact on the health and safety of communities, are punishable by consistent and appropriate penalties including a prison sentence.

Part 3 proposes numerous post-sentencing reforms to better support victims and to increase offender accountability and management. These reforms would include clarifying that the protection of society is of paramount consideration for the federal corrections process, the Parole Board of Canada and provincial parole boards, as well as give victims the right to make a statement at parole hearings and to receive certain information about the offender. They would also rename pardons as record suspensions, which better describes their real nature, and it would extend periods of ineligibility to apply for them as well as make certain offences ineligible to receive them.

Part 4 proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to better deal with violent and repeat offenders. These reforms include ensuring that the protection of the public is always considered as a principle in dealing with young offenders and strengthening the pre-trial detention provisions to enable the detention of youth who are spiralling out of control and who would pose a risk to the public safety by committing serious offences if released while awaiting trial. Importantly, these reforms would also enable a court, in appropriate cases, to sentence a youth to custody for violent offences that involve a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm to life or safety of others, and not just whether youth attempted to cause or threaten to cause bodily harm, as is currently the case.

Last, part 5 proposes immigration related reforms that would seek to protect vulnerable foreign workers against being exploited by unscrupulous Canadian employers.

Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to express their opinions about Bill C-10. Most, if not all, of these witnesses supported the fundamental principles of Bill C-10. For example, everyone agreed that sexual exploitation of children is a serious crime and that child sex offenders must be treated seriously by the criminal justice system.

Everyone agreed that trafficking of heroin and cocaine, especially by organized crime, must be treated seriously. I believe that most, if not all, of the witnesses agreed to including a provision whereby a mandatory minimum sentence would not be served if an offender successfully completed a drug treatment court program. And I believe that everyone agrees that vulnerable foreign workers must be protected from exploitation by unscrupulous Canadian employers.

It seems to me that the only individuals who appear to be completely against the fundamentals of Bill C-10 are sitting on the other side of the House. Members from the opposition have continuously demonstrated that they are completely out of touch with what Canadians want.

During our study in committee and during the report stage of debate, the opposition members tabled amendments to the bill that would repeal the two year mandatory sentence for the importation of the hardest drugs in Canada. They table amendments that would mean that those who bring date rape drugs into Canada would be subject to lighter sentences. They table amendments that would allow an arsonist, who burned someone's house down, to serve their sentence in the comfort of their own home. They table amendments that would delete new offences that are essential to prevent child sex offences and protect children. And the list goes on.

Canadians are worried about crime. That is one reason why they gave our government a clear mandate to make our streets and our communities safer. Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, will also help deal with pedophiles and drug traffickers who import hard drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine into Canada.

These legislative reforms are desirable and necessary and are a crucial part of the solution to crime in this country.

It is important to remind members on the other side of the chamber that although the legislative changes contained in Bill C-10 are an essential part of the solution and do achieve exactly the goals I have described, they are not the government's only response to preventing some of these crimes.

The government is also tackling crime through non-legislative measures, including, for example, the national anti-drug strategy launched in 2010, which has invested $588.8 million in three areas: prevention, treatment and enforcement, the last of which includes the reforms now proposed in part 2 of Bill C-10.

Second, the national crime prevention strategy is currently providing $45 million per year through the crime prevention action fund, the northern aboriginal crime prevention fund, the youth gang prevention fund and the security infrastructure program.

Third, the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet is currently providing $71 million over five years, that includes supporting the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre and providing law enforcement with better tools and resources to address Internet-based child sexual exploitation. It also supports the operation of cybertip.ca, the national 24/7 tip line for reporting online child sexual exploitation. That is being funded by the Centre for Child Protection that houses cybertip.ca and that carries out public education and awareness on these three issues.

I think we can all agree that the issues covered by Bill C-10 are serious issues. Bill C-10 provides a commensurate but tailored response to these issues that builds on existing legislative and non-legislative responses.

It is time for the opposition to listen to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast, to stop their fear-mongering, read the bill and understand what it really would do. It is time to act together to support Bill C-10 and to make Canada's streets safer.